:N 'THE HIGH ceum' D13' 1<,:ARNA'mKA AT BANGALQRE
Dated the 24th day of Navember 2009 '
:BEFORE:
THE) H(")N'BLE MRJUSTICE ; v'.JAGA1sfN;ér:?HA:~eVV%%« %%
MISCELLANEQLIS mes’? APPEAL N6.’*}22;:34 ; 5230? f’&’C}*
BETWEEN :
National I§1S1JI’a1}C€ Co. Ltd, a
Divisional Gffiflfl, T.Nag_ar, C}f1§:I1?1E’1§.,
Through Divisional Ma::_zé;ger,.”
Mandipete, Davanagcre.” ” * ~ _
H ” …AppeIla11£
[ ;§3fe,§””§3§*iV ‘Z3.:3gI2i§_1’t:$;1i;’ égdiioemg. 1
AND:
1- Hiinumaifi-’11€1I5P3s«.. %
Agvd 4?’ ;vcéII*?S;%$fdk’I*ir2;?arma,
R / 0′ B_fla.ch0d u-.’q’i[1i&g»é1.’ V’
Jaga111r_V’I’.a_§uk__, Davaiiagtire District.
‘, ‘ ….. ..
«_ ‘S/£1 j3}.%ec1._ Crafoor Sab,
% /’0-.Laboz.;r Celony,
315’ ‘{Zfi’:;_s:3 Efavanagere.
” ” ..,Respo:1é.e;:1ts
I B}? ‘Mahesh i%.Upp;in, Advocate fer R» 1 —- absent.
” ” ‘ _% AV , S:i”‘V.I3’.IE{u1kaI’I1i, Advtzncate for 3-2 m absent. )
Miscellaneous First Appeal filed under Section
“‘ :3{3′(13 of the W.C.Act: against the judgment dated
‘31.7.:2007 passed in KAD/KNP/£L§R.No. 214/2:305 on
the file: caf the Labour Qfficer 35 Commissioner far
Workme:1’s Compensation. Davanagere, awarding a
c0I;t1pe1:1sat:io11 of Rs.6 1,002] ~– with interest at 12%
‘This appeal coining on for hearing
court deiivered the foilowing :
JUDGMENT?’
This appeal is by the Naifiifrflai
questiening the liabiiity piiii ” ‘V:’>f;1=it’ W343.
Commissioner While filed
by R-1 g
2. This’ ‘I ‘~;:=:2L11″1$€;l j ffif t.’*1é appei1ant–insuraI1ct:-:
£L’oInpa11 y_ $1;;b1I1:i£$;:’V” .W8.S no evidence placed
before the V’ £’§OIr2111issiQ1}1ez*’L’ to show that R-4 was an
v ¢1np.i:;j};reg:_%V’:_1:1de3r R+2.—Navaz and that when the accident
:i:S”.–fL2005, the claimant was under the
e]a.5Lp:;5ym¢:::%i’%%;~§§’ R-2. Therefara, the finding af the
ffigmmisssiener in this zwgard is contrary 1:9 the very
taken by the amylayer himself befare the
.. ‘:W.Ci.€T}ommissi0ner. Referring to the order of the
_4 :. C’»0II1§fiiSSi()I1{2I’, the subznissicn made is that the
employer has also filed a statement before the
Commissisner stating that Rd frianuxnanthaypa __was
not an employee under R-2 and. as sucr1_1»,.:
Commissioner could 1101′: have recorded *
cefitrary to the stand taken by ‘A 2
The impugneci order, therefore,
3. Having thus heard ”
110118 representing there:§;poI;de;§.§s~; ‘}:1’»1¢i
q13¢:$ti<:m of law that is whether
the fmdijlg pf mgards thti
e111p1oyer»er;€1"15i§fi)j;f&:" be sustainabie in
iaw.
4. It . the the claimant before ‘f£he
V Camgxgissionef €:..’=1§i: }r1c {mas under the employment of R-2
S.1’*+;*z§,;<"rz::z_,;"' of the mini iomjv bearing mgsnafion No.
it was further contended by the
. when he was travelling aicmg with the
4_c<jd'1.ies on 35.4.2005 to ioaci thfi mm' 1' lorry with
.'.A{é'_ci;1fVhlj;A';3tus trees, the accident occmzed on N}-1.4 when
j ihé vahicie dashad to a Wall. Several persons sustained
injuries and one person was also died in tbs accident.
gf
var'
4
Based on these pleadings, the claimant approached’ the
WC. Commissioner fer compensation and, in
Commissiener aliewcd the said application by .
a sum of Rs.6i,()O’2/-.
5. Having thus heard tI1¢,T’:1ppeiiafit”s C0l¥fi$fgI: 0 1’1 *’
going through the order of’ it is
observed that LR-:2 aVlV§)V%’11ed his
statetnent i:)efc;>:~e__ the up the
stand that never {employed
by him nor as an empioyec
under ._aitx and further, the accident
aiso did Ana}: course and arising out of
_ emplrijment. light: said objection statement filed
‘=__b§,;f the _ the vehicle, the Commissioner gees on
claimant Hanunxanthappa was an
R-2 Navaz and the accident occurred ix;
K V’ V’ }:3:1é ‘C{}ufi’;€ of empioymerlt. When the employer himseif
the factum of emp1oyer–empioy’ee relafionship
‘”‘w.VVVI.:’i%: tWee11 E13113’ anti ciaglmazfzt Hanumanthappa, the
Commissiener could mat have held tea the <30nt:'ary and
that: empiajmr hinlseif was 3153 not examinecl by the
criaimant before the Clommissioner to substantiatc'–.__th<3
stand that he was an employee under R-.3
Therefore, the fmding "recorded by the
the emp1oyer—employee re1ations?L"j;ifj
and, as such, I am of the View thé1'.':.__ inc matizfif retqiaires
remand to the Commissionef find
the c:la:iI;1an£ is aiso at tiiévvénifgloycr if
at all the claimant R»-2 Navaz,
The Insurance Vto confiont the
objecticsns ;é';=§rii'er as regards the
employfir-ehjpléyeév 3"feiati:::f1ship is concerned.
5. Form awe the appeal is allowed and
_ the c;:_§«ti5c%1’LA.of the ilemznissioner putfing iiabiiity on
pay RS.61,()02/- to R-1 claimani is set
matter stancls remitted to the
.£.?;0:13f3;.1issie;icé%’ for fresh considfiraijen. Bath parties
H K given opportunity to place evidence in regard to
‘ cfzAip1oyer~empleyce relationship is concamcd and
T “–« VVVti:1éreafter, the W.(). Cnmmissicmer shall dispose of the:
‘ matter within three ma-nths from the ciate: of I’€£)€ip”xZ cf
this Ofdfti’. The 3:120:21}: in cicpasit be transfemed t9 the
Commissioner fer Wor_k1neI1’s Com nsation for hair;
2
kept in fixed depcpsii: subject tax the resmt of the case!
n
JUDGE; L [ A
ckcf –